Von Babasin had a memorable summer job in 1976.
The then 21-year-old worked in craft services for “Airport ’77,” a disaster movie with a cast that included Oscar winners and legends like Jack Lemmon, Lee Grant, George Kennedy, and James Stewart. But the Big Lady on set was Olivia de Havilland, who despite her stature spent most of production as a soldier in one grueling scene after another.
“He spent long days, getting soaked, crashing around the plane as we emptied the garbage tanks through the fuselage, took the shot and put it back in first position to do it again,” Babasin recalls. “And, she was a soldier in everything.”
“Airport ’77” was a huge box office hit in its day, but it has largely faded from memory, as have many of De Havilland’s films, as a result of being a centennial in a business that is constantly on the go. lurking for the shiny and new. But de Havilland’s legacy extends far beyond her on-screen work in such indelible classics as “Gone with the Wind” and “The Heiress.”
The actress, who died last weekend at the age of 104, after having survived many of her contemporaries for several decades, forever altered the employment structure in Hollywood by taking over major studios and winning. It was an act of resistance that overshadowed everything she had to do that summer at “Airport ’77”.
That’s because when De Havilland first entered the film business, the studios had all the power. The stars signed long-term contracts and were asked to work six days a week, for long hours. If they refused to be loaned to another studio or refused a role, they could be suspended without pay. The duration of the suspension was added to that of the contract.
“It was essentially a form of contract bondage,” says Howard Suber, professor emeritus of film history at UCLA. “These contracts gave the studio all the advantages and made it almost impossible for the stars to have a voice in their careers.”
De Havilland, under contract with Warner Bros., was dissatisfied with the quality of the roles they offered her. She was looking to stretch, portray more shadowy characters, and do more than just pass out for Errol Flynn, her co-star on Warner productions like “The Adventures of Robin Hood” and “Captain Blood.” In short, she wanted to play more roles like Melanie, the beautiful and warm southern beauty of “Gone With the Wind”, or Emmy, the school teacher who falls in love with a scammer in “Hold Back the Dawn”. Both films garnered Oscar de Havilland nominations, but only came after Warner Bros. loaned them to MGM and Paramount, respectively.
“I knew I had an audience, that people were really interested in my work, and that they were going to see a movie because I was there, and that I had a responsibility to them,” de Havilland recalled in an interview with The Academy of Achievement. “I couldn’t bear to disappoint them by doing a nonchalant job in a nonchalant movie.”
In 1943, De Havilland’s seven-year contract ended, but Warner Bros. announced that it was not yet free to move on. The study said she owed them an additional six months for the time she was suspended for refusing to act in certain movies. De Havilland defended herself, suing and arguing that the contract was for seven years, suspension or not, and that Warner Bros. was violating labor law. It was a brave move for her. Other bigger stars, like James Cagney and Bette Davis, had defied control of the studies in court, and for the most part they had not been successful. In the 1930s, Davis attempted to terminate her contract at Warner Bros. by suing the studio in the UK, only to lose and be forced to return to Hollywood indebted and with a reputation in the press for being spoiled and ungrateful.
“When Olivia brought Warner Bros. to court, she was basically taking over the system,” says Thomas J. Stipanowich, a law professor at Pepperdine University. “A lawsuit like this could have destroyed her career at a time when she was flourishing.”
Still, de Havilland and his lawyer Martin Gang persisted. They acknowledged that the suspensions had taken place, but argued that under California state law, employment contracts were only required for up to seven calendar years. She won the first trial, but Warner Bros. appealed, a period of time where de Havilland was caught in painful limbo. The studio lost its case in a decision deemed to be such a landmark that it has been dubbed the “de Havilland law,” Superior Court Judge Charles S. Burnell said the actress’s contract was a form of “peonage” or illegal. servitude. In a large and striking headline, Variety, noting the ruling, declared on March 15, 1944, “De Havilland’s free agent.”
Variety
“The court removed any maneuvering room the employers had,” said Alan R. Friedman, a partner at Fox Rothschild. “It was a decision that applied to more than just Hollywood. It applied to all employees in California. “
In the long run, it also changed the face of the film business by encouraging other artists and filmmakers to attack on their own and control their own destiny. Rather than relying on studios to create their image, more and more actors formed their own production companies or found projects to advocate to suit their tastes and ambitions. Multiple scripts like Brad Pitt, Kirk Douglas, Robert Redford, Reese Witherspoon, and Clint Eastwood might not have enjoyed the same type of career if De Havilland hadn’t weakened control of major studios.
“If you love movies, then you love people who make movies,” said Ben Mankiewicz, host of Turner Classic Movies. “And you love them because they are the work of great writers, directors, actors, cinematographers and stylists. These are all artists and deserve to have as much freedom as is reasonably possible to create their magic. “
Not that there were no repercussions for De Havilland. Warner Bros. and its vengeful boss Jack Warner tried to pressure other studios not to hire the star. However, De Havilland’s talent won, and in the following decade she scored two Oscars for “To Each His Own” and “The Heiress”, as well as another nomination for “The Snake Pit”.
“If he hadn’t separated, he definitely would not have had the career path he enjoyed or would not be able to fulfill the roles he played,” says Jeanine Basinger, chair of the film studies department at Wesleyan University. “It would not have had the longevity it did. By the way, not many actors would either. “
The system that allowed Warner to exercise such massive control would soon be pushed aside, a victim of de Havilland’s legal victory, as well as a 1948 Supreme Court ruling that forced studios to ditch their theater chains. The television boom in the 1950s further accelerated that decline.
But those were the kind of systemic challenges, both legal and technological, that any business faces. De Havilland’s case represents a triumph of the individual over an industry. His courage and role in bringing about real and necessary change in an exploitative business is ultimately worth more than any critical praise or honor he received in a decades-long career.
“She was tough and she stuck with it, and as a result put the studios on her knees,” says Basinger. “Other actresses have won Academy Awards. Other stars have been so famous. But few had such a profound impact as de Havilland’s. “
Jazz Tangcay contributed to this report.
